D&D 5E What does "Campaign" mean to you?

[Maxperson]

Adventure Paths didn't exist when I started playing. I'm not even sure when the first thing that might be considered an AP was released.

But now that you mention it, I think "choice" is a good indicator whether something is a campaign or not. An AP you can't divert from is really just one very long adventure and not a campaign.

In the recent games I've run I've found the players are willing to see whatever adventure they've chosen through to the end if only on the metagame assumption that the DM has actually prepared for it. At least, I know I ask the players what they plan to do next session so I can prepare something.

I personally dislike adventure paths. I usually make my own adventures, but occasionally want to run something created by WotC. Shorter modules are what I would make use of. I don't need or want long term campaign options like adventure paths.

 

[Sunseeker]

In the recent games I've run I've found the players are willing to see whatever adventure they've chosen through to the end if only on the metagame assumption that the DM has actually prepared for it. At least, I know I ask the players what they plan to do next session so I can prepare something.

Staying two steps ahead of the players is always a trick isn't it? Or at least making them believe you're always two steps ahead!

But yes, I do find players have a tendency to want to "finish the quest" no matter what. There are a few exceptions, mostly when the DM bogs things down in minutia, or makes the path forward so unclear as players don't actually know how to proceed. I've had that happen in a few games. Sometimes the DM is 10 steps ahead and isn't able to look at the immediate situation in the same way as the players. It's easy to wonder why your players aren't seeing the solution when you already know what the solution is.

 

[Lanefan]

I personally dislike adventure paths. I usually make my own adventures, but occasionally want to run something created by WotC. Shorter modules are what I would make use of. I don't need or want long term campaign options like adventure paths.

It's very possible - sometimes even unintentionally - to embed an adventure path into a bigger campaign with very good results; said AP could be homebrewed or canned. It's also very possible to take a series of shorter modules and make a quasi-AP out of them by simply tying them together into one story arc; I'll kind of do this in reverse by coming up with an idea for a story, figuring out what adventures might lie along said story arc, then finding or designing suitable modules. But the campaign doesn't (necessarily) end when the AP does; the characters can go on to other things and the game continues.

My current campaign has had, thus far, three clearly identifyable APs within it, one or two less obvious and-or not yet finished APs, and if I'm lucky two or three more yet to come...all to go along with a bunch of unrelated adventures, side treks, diversions, etc.

Lanefan

 

[Maxperson]

It's very possible - sometimes even unintentionally - to embed an adventure path into a bigger campaign with very good results; said AP could be homebrewed or canned. It's also very possible to take a series of shorter modules and make a quasi-AP out of them by simply tying them together into one story arc; I'll kind of do this in reverse by coming up with an idea for a story, figuring out what adventures might lie along said story arc, then finding or designing suitable modules. But the campaign doesn't (necessarily) end when the AP does; the characters can go on to other things and the game continues.

My current campaign has had, thus far, three clearly identifyable APs within it, one or two less obvious and-or not yet finished APs, and if I'm lucky two or three more yet to come...all to go along with a bunch of unrelated adventures, side treks, diversions, etc.

Lanefan

Oh, for sure. I just don't enjoy running that amount of pre-made stuff. I wasn't saying it couldn't be done or was bad to do so.

For me, a module here and there is as much as I want to run. I typically run 0-1 in any given campaign that I run, and my campaigns are around a year to a year and a half long. That's running games about 3-4 times a month.

 

[Mercule]

A bit of a confusing post...but I think what you are saying is that after 25 years you are planning for a "big-ending" sort of adventure, and that because it is ending, that makes it 'not a campaign'?

Yeah.... Sorry. I was on my mobile and didn't realize how bad the autocorrect was until re-reading it.

No, it most definitely is/was a campaign. What I was saying was that if you had pre-planned this big ending out before the players even sat down to make characters...then it might not be a 'campaign'. I suppose that the time it takes to finish some "adventure path" storyline may qualify it as some sort of pseudo-campaign, I guess. *shrug* Anyhoo... I'm guessing you didn't "plan" this ending, or the 'core story' when you started it 15 years ago. That's the crux of the definition to me. If the DM and players go into a game knowing that they will be going from level 1 to level 20 in a sea-faring based adventure involving pirates and demons...then that isn't a "campaign" to me.

When I created the world, no. It just was the sandbox in which we played. Over time, I added lore and structure to things, including reconciling different parties (campaigns?) as being different eras and regions on the same world. I think we're all good, here.

Where I'm not sure of your definition is that, after a few years of doing other games and whatnot, I wanted to start up a new D&D game and I realized that the default assumption was that I was going to run this particular campaign setting. It actually felt a bit confining, but I hadn't quite revealed all the "secrets" I'd always wanted to and there'd been this building doom around this one dark empire. There was also a fairly unique PC concept that one of the guys had started up, but never got to play very long. So, I said, "What the heck. Let's burn it to the ground." I also told the player that it'd be a great opportunity for him to get closure on that character. Then I invited the other players, about 2/3 of whom had played in my setting before.

So, before characters were created, I had a vague idea of where things would start, how they'd escalate, and a pretty clear idea of what the end would look like. The intent was to take the party through 20th level and, probably, into early epic levels. We ended up playing for 4-4.5 years and the PCs made it to 15th level before a combination of burgeoning families and the weight of 3.5 mechanics (for narrative gamers) made the game difficult to schedule and prep for. After a couple of particularly nasty, convoluted sessions that got us deep into rules balance assumptions vs. table expectations and style, we had a discussion about where to go and I ended up just narrating the end of the storyline. Everyone had had fun, but no one wanted to do high level play in 3.5, ever again.

On the one hand, that could be seen as the capstone for a campaign that had been playing out for a number of years, in a number of groups. It was no different than getting the PCs to name level and planning a reason for them to retire and their kids take over. On the other hand, I was pretty sure what the end looked like (success or failure) before that last batch of characters was created.

Was it a campaign?

Campaigns end. But because they end that doesn't mean they weren't campaigns. Adventure Paths end...and because they already have a beginning, middle and end, they are not "campaigns". If the DM and players continue with the same PC's after the AP's end...then it can become part of a campaign.

I've done almost exclusively home brew for my 35 year run. So, I've got no real love lost for published adventures. That said, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of a campaign.

I'm running LMoP and PotA, back-to-back. LMoP was done as a trial run of the 5E rules. At the end of that, we tweaked some build choices and decided to continue on with PotA. I do not see us continuing on when we're done w/ PotA. I just don't think I care about high-level play. For the amount of time we've spent on the game, with the same players and characters, it's more than just "an adventure". I can see the distinction of leaving the campaign "ending" open until it happens, but what do you call something that's more than an adventure but less than "open ended"?

IMO, we're still playing a campaign. It's just not an open ended campaign.

 

[pming]

Hiya!
[MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION], I'd say that the last "end part" (of your long-standing game) was still part of the original campaign because you didn't start a new time line in the same world, and your "ending" had all the previous games events taken as fact.

I've done a bit more thinking on this thread over the past day or two and have come to the realization that there simply is no definitive "line" where on this side...it's a campaign...but on that side, it's not. Far too much overlap and blurring of the lines, so to speak.

An AP isn't a "campaign" when looked at as a single series of adventures that have no connection to any other games the DM has run. But an AP can be part of a campaign if it does have direct connections to previous games, or if, after the AP ends, the DM has more games that has direct connections to what went on in that AP. Similarly, if a DM "ends" a campaign, as you did with yours...but then, for example, decides to go back to that campaign and continue it from when it supposedly ended. Are they then two different campaigns that share a merged end/beginning? Or is it still part of the "original" campaign? If so, did that original campaign 'end' at all...I mean, if the new PC's begin their adventuring careers the day after "Demogorgan's Plan to Rule the World" were thwarted, isn't it the same campaign, but with different PC's?

Yeah, as I said...it's getting a bit more fuzzy around the edges. So I guess the only sensible answer to the original thread question is: "A campaign is more than the sum of it's parts...usually. At least from a certain point of view". Or, to put it another way...there's a quote someone said "I can't tell you what porn is, but I'll know it when I see it". Same thing with campaigns I guess! Who knew?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[iserith]

I would not consider this a campaign, no.

Though I imagine some of the definitions posted above that don't require a persistent PC group would mean your set of adventures was a campaign. They are a series of adventures in a persistent game world. And at least the group of players and characters isn't completely random.

I would consider a campaign to simply be a set of adventures that are strung together. In this case, session is its own adventure and one adventure has an impact on the next in a persistent world. There is no particular need for consistent PC group - even in a more "traditional" group than mine (for lack of a better term), sometimes characters are killed or retired, and it's no less a campaign as a result, right?

 

[Sammael]

To me, a campaign has always meant the same thing: a series of adventures carried out by the (more or less) same group of PCs in the same persistent setting (not necessarily the same world). Whether or not the campaign has clearly defined start and end-points is not too relevant, as long as those end-points can feasibly lead into further adventures.

I don't tend to plot out entire campaigns right away, but anything I use from level 1 onward is a potential adventure waiting to happen, and I often go back to old sessions to dig out unexplored themes or clues.

The majority of my D&D games take place in my version of Faerûn (circa 1375 DR) that's been shaped by all campaigns and adventures I've run since the early 2000s. But I've done a few Planescape-only adventures which I consider to share the same persistent world - if PCs used a portal to go to Faerûn, it'd be the same world as in my other games. Unless a RSE of my devising was underway, of course

 

[Capn Charlie]

I use "campaign" in the more modern sense provided by the dictionary. A closer description might be "Story Arc". When I do a campaign it is a cohesive story involving some overlap of players and characters, start to finish. Some characters die and their players run their replacements, some characters go "off screen" to deal with important things, and their players leave as well, new friends are met, new allies found, and these might be npcs or pcs played by new players.

But the important thing is that it is a cohesive story arc, with a good stopping point. I love starting up a new campaign and you have people sitting around the table, veterans of previous campaigns, building rapport and reminiscing about campaigns their characters shared in. Typically for me a campaign will span 1-3 levels, perhaps a bit more if it starts at 1.

 

[Lanefan]

For me, a module here and there is as much as I want to run. I typically run 0-1 in any given campaign that I run, and my campaigns are around a year to a year and a half long. That's running games about 3-4 times a month.

Which points out one huge difference between us - a year-and-a-half for us counts as just nicely getting started. Since 1984 I've run three campaigns, and the current in-progress one is (for now) the shortest at a bit under 9 years.

But note that I'm perhaps also using the word "campaign" to mean a bit more than some: in my case the "campaign" includes all the adventures played in that particular world/setting provided that said adventures/parties can somehow interact with each other. Charting the characters/parties moves in my current campaign results in something resembling a plate of spaghetti as parties merge, split, stop, start and individual characters move from one to another. In play, what it often means is one party gets put on hold while we play out the other, then we switch back. Same campaign, though.

Lanefan